DirtDiver said:
I for one have appealed to the experts of exegesis in the past because of their credentials and eloquent speech and got it wrong. I think this applies to the early church fathers as well. It's my responsibility to examine the biblical text myself and not appeal to the early church fathers.
This is such a wild statement. Perhaps I am missing your intent? I am in no position to judge anyone in how they walk with Christ and perhaps you have a devout relationship with Him. I only respond to how dangerous and perhaps even reckless it is to rely on "myself" in a vacuum and not the church fathers (or dare I say tradition).
Which Bible are you using? Is it written so that each book in the original ancient text or has it been translated and revised multiple times? Are you well educated in interpreting ancient letters and language or are you relying on someone's modern interpretation?
I find it quite arrogant to make the claim that someone in the modern age can come to a better conclusion in proper worship then someone who lived during and/or had access to people who actually witnessed Christ. Did you ever play the game "Telephone" as a kid? Then you would know the farther you get from the source, the more errors are made in the message. This is the problem of interpreting the Bible without tether to the proper context and solely on itself. A tether that is proper is one grounded in a traditional understanding of said document closest to the original source.
The church fathers were those individuals who started the message that comes to us today. They taught and led the church before the first Bible was organized in the 3rd century. They maintained a tradition that is well documented when you study early church history. It is that very tradition which was used to discern which books would be included in that first Bible. You trust the Church fathers to tell you what books to include in your Bible, but you don't trust them on other areas of faith?
How about Paul, who walked with Christ and witnessed his death and resurrection who wrote in 50 AD:
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers
and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers
and sisters,
stand firm and hold on to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. -2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
There could not have been "sola scriptura" for 250 years because there was not yet any Bible. It was tradition and letter established by the magisterium of the apostolic church that led Christians. We should not lose tether to that fact; Rather, we should use that tradition to make sure we don't lose the message.
When it comes to the traditions on the Eucharist, there is only one answer that is clear. Even the Romans authorities thought the early Christians were "weird" for this teaching writing to each other in 110 AD:
"charges against Christians by Pliny may have been partly based on the "secret crimes" associated with Christianity, later characterized by
Athenagoras as atheism, cannibalistic feasts and incest.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians#cite_note-EveFerguson-4][4][/url] The cannibalistic feasts and incest charges were based on misunderstanding of the
Eucharistic act and Christians being "brothers and sisters", even after marriage."
Pliny the Younger on Christians - WikipediaYour faith journey is your own. I only caution you not to make that walk alone, relying solely on yourself.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full
Medical Disclaimer.
